Chapter 33: Human dimensions of wild boar367
As damage caused by wild boar on agriculture has increased
over time, so have HDW studies on farmers’ attitudes toward
the species. For example, research conducted in France on
wolves and wild boars documented farmers’ perceptions of loss
of social legitimacy, decline in influence, and an increase in the
domination of the leisure industry (Mounet & Keogh 2006). In
Sumatra, farmers were asked to record and report crop dam-
age caused by wild boars and other species. This study aimed to
highlight differences between perceived and actual crop pests,
and to document patterns of crop raiding (Linkie et al. 2007).
Farmers’ perceptions of disease transmission through wild
boar have also been explored (Lutton et al. 2010) and compared
between countries (Vergne et al. 2014). Attitudes toward differ-
ent management practices, such as compensation for damages
(Pontuale 2009; Trygg 2014; Frank et al. 2015), preventive meas-
ures (Pontuale 2009; Frank & Bath 2012; Licoppe et al. 2013),
and population control (Pontuale 2009; Licoppe et al. 2013;
Frank et al. 2015) were documented through various HDW
studies. Values, beliefs, fear and knowledge toward wild boar
were other key topics discussed with farmers (Frassanito 2005;
Rulli & Savini 2008; Carnevali & Scacco 2009; Pontuale 2009;
Ryan 2011; Frank et al. 2015).
Studies on attitudes toward the species have flourished as
human–wild boar interactions have become more common.
In Berlin, a study was conducted to identify which section of
the public was affected by wild boar and what types of problems
were generated by the species (Kotulski & Konig 2007, 2008).
This study used public attitudes and knowledge as a means to
better address wild boar management in the city. Likewise, atti-
tudes toward and knowledge of the species and its management
were surveyed in England (Dutton & Clayton 2010) and Italy
(Pontuale 2009; Frank & Bath 2012; Frank et al. 2015). Research
about public attitudes and the influence of the media on public
perceptions helped to understand issues related to: (1) risk and
damage perceptions in England (Goulding & Rope. 2002);
(2) wild boar habituation, management, and disease transmission
in urban and suburban landscapes in Spain (Cahill et al. 2010);
and (3) wild boar feeding and habituation in Japan (Fuse 2012).
Similarly to the other stakeholders, these surveys were con-
ducted to assess public values, attitudes, and knowledge toward
wild boar and its management (Rulli & Savini 2008; Carnevali
& Scacco 2009; Pontuale 2009; Frank & Bath 2012; Frank et al.
2015). These variables were explored often in relation to soci-
odemographic and physical factors (Carnevali & Scacco 2009;
Li et al. 2010; Frank & Bath 2012; Frank et al. 2015).
Additional topics and stakeholders have been considered in
HDW research on wild boar. A web survey was developed to
document experts’ opinion on the reasons behind the presence
of and conflict with wild boar in peri-urban areas across several
countries (Prévot & Alain 2012; Licoppe et al. 2013). The pre-
liminary data of this research highlighted how food availability,
urbanization, and the presence of shelters determined the abun-
dance of the species and the conflict intensity between humans
and wild boar. Another study in the Netherlands focused on
understanding how wild boar is categorized and managed in a
large natural area (Boonman-Berson 2012). Researchers have
also compared the attitudes of multiple stakeholders toward
the species and its management (Frassanito 2005; Badino 2007;
Carnevali & Scacco 2009; Pontuale 2009; Bobek et al. 2010; Ryan
2011; Frank et al. 2015). The impacts of wild boars on protected
areas have been assessed by interviewing residents living in and
around those areas in India (Sekhar 1998), China (Li et al. 2010),
and Italy (Frank & Bath 2012; Frank et al. 2015). Guidelines to
implement HDW approaches in wild boar management have
also been produced to help practitioners reduce conflicts with
the species through better public involvement (Monaco et al.
2010).
Feral domestic pigs, wild boars, or hybrids (also called feral
or wild hogs) can cause conflicts in areas where they have been
accidentally or intentionally released. In Australia, perceived
socioeconomic and ecological costs and benefits of living
with feral pig, as well as management implications have been
widely documented to better address human–wild hog con-
flicts (O’Brien 1987; Choquenot et al. 1996; Noble 1996; Mason
& Fleming 1999; Oliver & Walton 2004; Meurk 2011; Koichi
2012; Shuster 2012; Invasive Animals CRC 2014). Such research
has involved different stakeholders, including the general pub-
lic, farmers, and hunters. Additionally, in Queensland’s Wet
Tropics World Heritage Area, tourists’ attitudes and sensitivity
toward the presence of feral pigs (Koichi et al. 2012a) as well as
aboriginal rangers’ opinions toward this invasive species have
been investigated (Koichi et al. 2012b). Attitudes toward wild
pigs and their management have also been explored in light
of cultural traditions and hunting in Hawaii, where multiple
stakeholders have been asked about the use of the species and
its management (Maguire et al. 1997; Maguire 2004; Lohr et al.
2014). With an estimated wild hog population of over 2 million,
Texas has undertaken an HDW approach that includes multiple
strategies. For example, the Texas Cooperative Extension and
the Texas A&M Agrilife Extension have conducted surveys,
educational campaigns, workshops, and seminars to engage the
public and stakeholders in wild hog management and to reach
consensus on local damage issues caused by the species (Rollins
et al. 1993; Higginbotham 2013). Questionnaires have been
used in the USA (Mengak et al. 2015), California (Frederick
1998), Mississippi (Fogarty 2007), Georgia (Mengak 2012), and
Illinois (Harper et al. 2014; Miller et al. 2015) to assess dam-
ages and document the general public and stakeholder attitudes
toward wild hogs and its management. The impact of the species
on protected areas was also assessed by interviewing residents
living around Congaree National Park, South Carolina, USA
(D’Ippolito 2008). In the central Canadian prairies, a survey was
conducted on the distribution and perceptions of risk toward
feral hogs (Brook & Beest 2014).
Most studies on human–wild boar interactions have been
carried out as reactions to pressing conflicts with the species.
Such HDW efforts often have remained single case studies pro-
viding superficial overviews of attitudes toward wild boar and
its management. As a result, the partial involvement of local
communities in species management has led to a decrease in
trust and an increase in hostility toward decision makers and
wildlife agencies (Glikman & Frank 2011; Frank & Bath 2012;
Frank et al. 2015), making wild boar management even more
challenging..03512:55:49